UPDATE 1: The Wikipedia article for the Bush Doctrine has changed so much that my link no longer works, so I have adapted the link in this post to show the revision I had read at the time. At the time of this update, the article shows the four interpretations of the Bush Doctrine way up at the beginning instead of down at the bottom. If you want to see the current article, here's the link, but the link I offer farther down is to the archived revision that I originally linked to.

I made a mistake already... Can you point it out? People who know what "The Bush Doctrine" really is will know. If you don't know, then you're probably one of the people who think Sarah Palin is an idiot for asking Charlie Gibson what he meant by "The Bush Doctrine." Do you know what the mistake is? Let me tell you:

There is no such thing as THE Bush Doctrine. No such thing... Oh, there is A Bush Doctrine. "The" insinuates that there is a single defintion for "Bush Doctrine." There is, in fact, FOUR of them. All you have to do is look up the Wikipedia article for it and you can see the history of the term. The first instance of the term was used in February 2001 in reference to President Bush's decision to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. The second instance was used in an entirely different context on September 11th when President Bush declared that nations were either with us in the war against terror, or against us. The third instance was used to argue that we have the right to preemptively attack anyone who we think might be a threat to us. The fourth instance, which is the common definition today, is the idea that in order to guarantee the freedom of our democracy in the United States, we need to aid and defend the democracies of other countries. There are, indeed, FOUR definitions of "Bush Doctrine." There is no "THE Bush Doctrine" and this is why Sarah Palin was entirely correct to be "confused" and ask Charlie Gibson what he meant by the Bush Doctrine.

Taken from the transcript posted on The Mark Levin Show:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

In fact, it was Gibson who was way off base here. He called it "THE Bush Doctrine"... And you should have seen the way he reacted to Palin not falling into the trap. He sighed and just barely contained his disgust before finally coming out to say that he was talking about the third definition of the Bush Doctrine! The one where we are allowed to preemptively attack whoever we think might be a treat. Once he clearly defined what he was talking about, Sarah Palin launched into what she thought. (Of course, if you read the transcript and watch the footage, you'll see that Gibson cut out a lot of what she said in response.) It's one of those (pardon the expression) damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't questions. If Palin went off and answered what she thought he was talking about, people would have pegged her with having no idea what she was talking about... Of course, even when she does the appropriate thing and asks what he's talking about, people STILL point and laugh and say she doesn't know what she's talking about. What's really amazing, though, is that the people who are pointing and laughing are only showing their own ignorance. Seriously... This information is on Wikipedia, for crying out loud. You really have no excuse. You remember when I mentioned that you'd probably be better off not reading the YouTube comments for Palin's ABC interview? I said that mostly in reference to the fact that there were so many obscene comments that were making fun of her over her questioning Gibson's "Bush Doctrine." YouTube brings out the worst in people as it is... You can only imagine the depth of horror that gets dredged up in comments about conservatives.

In fact, as if to highlight the dimwittedness of the mainstream media, there is an article I heard about on The Peter Heck Show... It's an article written for CBS News titled: "The Sarah Palin Phenomenon Is Doomed". Among other things (which are lies, of course), he attributes Sarah Palin's stardom to... You guessed it. The mainstream media. Don't believe me? Take a look-see:

This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions. Then we knock them down.

Jon Friedman dares attribute Palin's "phenomenon" to the mainstream media unnaturally and artificially raising her standing with the public. He says it'll be nothing but a matter of time before they knock her down. His words... Not mine. He claims this despite the fact that, since Day 1... Since the day McCain announced Sarah Palin, the mainstream media has subjected her (in Peter Heck's words, if I may borrow them) "to a full body cavity search." Seriously! They've done nothing, since Day 1, but dive deeper into her past than anyone else in this campaign... They've dredged up mock scandals and flat-out lies that are constantly debunked and proven to be wrong. The great thing is that most of what the left accuses Palin of, we're able to use against Obama in such a way that it STICKS. The media dredges up left-wing blog lies and brings them to the public, they get debunked and everyone goes "wait, didn't Obama do something like that?" and then the media has a moment of "oops, forget we said anything" and then goes on to the next round of lies and false scandals. The fact is, unless she makes a huge blunder in the future, there's nothing they have on her, period. There is not a thing that they've been able to find that's managed to hurt her without costing the media and Obama's campaign dearly. But that's not all... Farther on down the page, Friedman manages to make fun of Palin's response to "THE Bush Doctrine"... As in, once again, singluar definition. And I quote:

Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts. When Gibson put it to her and asked if she agreed with the doctrine, she answered, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Some analysts have suggested that Gibson knew more about the Bush Doctrine than the vice-presidential candidate.

Friedman didn't even use the same definition of the Bush Doctrine that Gibson did! Outrageous... And then he goes to insinuate that Palin knew squat. Look... Friedman believes that the Bush Doctrine refers to the latest rendition of the term: The Fourth Bush Doctrine. The one where they say our best hope for securing the safety of the United States is to spread and defend the democracies in other countries. That's the fourth definition, not the third that Gibson himself said. Remember, he said the Bush Doctrine he was referring to was the idea that we can preemptively attack anyone we think is a threat to the United States. That's SLIGHTLY different than "spreading democracry around the world." Some analysts have suggested that Gibson knew more about it, indeed... Well, you know what? "Some analysts" were WRONG. This just goes to prove that not even the mainstream media can keep the same definition of the Bush Doctrine. How is Palin (or anyone else for that matter) supposed to answer a question that's so ambiguous? The answer: Ask what they mean. She wasn't inexperienced or confused or stupid... She was doing what any person who knows about this should do: Ask what they mean. Clarify which definition is being referred to. That's not stupid, that's being sharp!

Sarah Palin is WAY more sharper and experienced than anyone who's laughed at her for being confused about the Bush Doctrine, period. Funny how those people are claiming she's unfit to be Vice President. Looks like she's passing all your tests with flying colors... Isn't that a good thing? No. Not to the liberals. They utterly can't stand this woman and they're going to do whatever it takes to crush her. It's amazing how everything they've thrown at her has backfired with epic proportions. They're killing themselves with the ammunition meant to kill her... It's fantastic!